Delegates convened in Plenary throughout the day to
comment on the further development of the SAICM, while a contact
group met to consider the rules of procedure.

PLENARY

Opening the Plenary, Chair Halldor Thorgeirsson
(Iceland) announced that the Bureau had selected Abiola Olanipekun
(Nigeria) as Rapporteur.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF A SAICM: Comments on the
further development of the SAICM responded to the Secretariat’s note
on the proposed structure of the report (/6), focusing on policy
aspects, coordination, capacity building and development assistance,
and implementation.

On implementation, many supported a concrete action
plan containing timeframes and indicators, and some stressed the
need for technical and financial mechanisms to support
implementation. CANADA called for a global plan of action
incorporating a review period that coincides with the 2010-2011
Commission on Sustainable Development implementation cycle
concerning chemicals, among other issues. NEW ZEALAND supported the
development of a political document that will serve as an
overarching framework that integrates existing instruments. He also
recommended keeping open the possibility for further elaboration of
legal frameworks. EGYPT said the SAICM should be a general framework
and not entail legal commitments. MALAYSIA urged a flexible
timeframe that recognizes the limitations of developing countries.

On coordination, many delegates stressed that the
SAICM should avoid duplication with other international agreements,
and called for implementation of and synergies among existing
chemicals-related agreements. Many also stressed the need for
synergies among government agencies. A number of participants
stressed the importance of linking the IFCS Bahia Declaration
and Priorities for Action Beyond 2000 to the WSSD 2020
target. NIGERIA requested that this PrepCom give greater
consideration to IFCS outcomes. The WORLD BANK suggested controlling
additional chemicals within the context of existing agreements or,
if new instruments are developed, ensuring their harmonization. FIJI
called for coordinated budget programmes for chemicals management at
the international level.

On capacity building and development assistance,
many developing countries said the SAICM should prioritize capacity
building concerns and called for resources to bridge the widening
gap. SIERRA LEONE, UGANDA and others called for transfer of clean
technologies to developing countries. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION
emphasized support for countries with economies in transition to
implement existing conventions. CANADA called for greater
collaboration with the GEF, and said the SAICM should address
cross-cutting issues, such as poverty eradication and unsustainable
patterns of production and consumption. NEW ZEALAND, FIJI and others
emphasized the importance of integrating chemicals management into
the development agenda. FINLAND announced its financial contribution
to the SAICM.

On policy aspects, delegates highlighted the need to
consider a range of issues, including principles and approaches,
cleaner production, information management and dissemination,
monitoring, and waste. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA and IPEN called for
preventive measures and, with JAMAICA, the ICFTU, the PHILIPPINES,
WWF and others, supported the inclusion of the precautionary
principle. Many supported the life-cycle approach.

The RUSSIAN FEDERATION called for developing centers
of cleaner production, and enhancing information dissemination on
best available practices and alternatives. With MADAGASCAR and
others, she said the SAICM should reflect specific regional
concerns. BRAZIL stressed the need to generate and disseminate
information on the eco-toxicological effects of chemicals and focus
on clean-up operations. JAMAICA called for monitoring mechanisms,
and supported ISRAEL’s request to develop indicators for chemical
exposure and its effects on human health.

The BASEL CONVENTION said the SAICM should consider
strategies that apply science-based precautionary measures
throughout the entire life-cycle of chemicals. She stressed the need
to streamline and mobilize resources for both chemicals and
waste-related issues, and with others, highlighted the contribution
of the Basel Convention Regional Centers to capacity building. The
ICFTU stressed the importance of addressing workplace chemicals, and
said the SAICM should incorporate: full industry accountability; the
right to know; and adequate training on risks and alternatives.

SLOVENIA called for consideration of emissions
reduction strategies, including through changing consumption
patterns. BOTSWANA called for industry participation, and supported
AUSTRALIA’s call for priority setting. He highlighted the need for
raising awareness on chemical risks, and liability and compensation
regimes. With INDONESIA, CHILE and others, he called for addressing
the issue of polluting technologies and industries migrating to the
developing world. HAITI urged reasonable measures that developing
countries could adopt.

GREENPEACE identified substitution and the phasing
out of dangerous substances by 2020 as critical to achieving
chemical safety. With WWF and ICFTU, he called for inclusion of the
most problematic chemicals, such as endocrine disruptors and
substances that are persistent bioaccumulative and toxic, and
carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic. He stressed the importance of
establishing rules of procedure that allow for transparency and the
broad participation of all relevant stakeholders. WWF urged further
research on existing chemicals and safer alternatives. He said a
paradigm shift was needed to achieve the WSSD 2020 target.

The IUF called on the SAICM to reduce severe
pesticide poisonings of agricultural workers. The PHILIPPINES
recommended that the SAICM: embrace the public right to know;
address illegal traffic; involve the trade, agriculture, education
and information sectors in discussions; create strong links between
NGOs and governments; and strengthen the capacity of medical
experts.

The ICCA said the SAICM is an opportunity to build
new partnership approaches, remove trade barriers, streamline
regulatory approaches, and promote industry’s voluntary initiatives.

The ILO noted 438,000 workplace fatalities resulting
from inadequate chemical safety practices, and called for the
ratification and implementation of relevant ILO instruments. BELARUS
proposed using the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as a
model for the SAICM, and limiting the range of chemicals to be
governed.

TONGA drew attention to the vulnerabilities of small
Pacific island States to chemical risks. KENYA suggested moving away
from a "piecemeal" approach toward a holistic broad-based agenda
that addresses cross-cutting issues and protects future generations.
Calling for a toxic-free world, IPEN stressed the need to protect
children from chemical exposure, noting that for some chemicals,
such as lead, there are no known safe threshold limits.

CHINA recommended that the SAICM: consider differing
levels of economic development; address new chemicals; develop an
international framework for information exchange; and help reconcile
national chemical management standards. CHILE called for developing
and using cleaner technologies and products.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO requested that industry take
responsibility for ensuring chemical safety, including through
additional research on the hazardous effects of chemicals. PERU
emphasized the need to address chemical accidents and obsolete
stocks. PAKISTAN recommended that the SAICM address the use and safe
disposal of chemicals in different sectors, emphasizing the
importance of action on the ground. URUGUAY highlighted
responsibility and accountability of all actors at all levels.
Noting that agricultural workers are the most affected by pesticides
and that they remain marginalized in policy making, PAN recommended
meaningful participation of all sectors and stakeholders in the
SAICM, and a mechanism to "make the SAICM more relevant at the
grassroots level."

BOLIVIA recommended considering a role for the civil
protection and defence sectors in responding to chemical accidents,
and called for research on clean-up and rehabilitation of
contaminated areas, with industry participation. WOMEN IN EUROPE FOR
A COMMON FUTURE called for eliminating substances that pose
environmental and health threats, and for chemicals producers to
generate data on intrinsic chemical properties.

FAO highlighted its International Code of Conduct on
the Distribution and Use of Pesticides as a framework for pesticide
management. UGANDA called for: industry and producing countries to
assume responsibility; mechanisms for evaluating progress; and
community awareness raising. WHO referred to its report(/8),
and noted that 56 countries agreed on gaps, needs and priorities on
the health aspects of the SAICM.

SIERRA LEONE called for raising awareness in the
workplace. MEXICO urged research on safer products and technologies,
and cooperation between scientific centers to improve knowledge on
chemicals. GUINEA proposed: including cradle-to-cradle and
cradle-to-grave approaches and the polluter pays principle; cleaning
up of contaminated sites; and elaborating a list of activities that
use chemical products. ZAMBIA urged the use of safer alternatives
and actions to prevent the building up of stockpiles.

In summarizing the comments, Chair Thorgeirsson
noted calls for an overarching political strategic vision, stating
that this could take the form of a ministerial declaration. He then
proposed the following six headings to structure further discussions
on the policy aspects of the SAICM outcome report: statement of
needs; goals and objectives; principles and approaches; scope;
scientific basis, assessment and monitoring; and action items.

On coordination, he noted delegates’ emphasis on
implementing existing agreements, coherence and synergies,
cooperation and voluntary initiatives. On capacity building and
development assistance, he recognized calls for strong links to
poverty eradication, addressing the widening gap, and clean
technology transfer. On implementation, he noted the support for
monitoring progress and resource mobilization. He also acknowledged
the call for an open, transparent and inclusive process.

In discussions on the way forward for PrepCom1,
SWITZERLAND introduced its proposal, co-sponsored by Argentina,
Croatia, Iran, Norway and Slovenia, for a possible structure of the
SAICM (/CRP.1), emphasizing that this proposal does not conflict
with the Chair’s or the Secretariat’s proposed structures. He
suggested that the SAICM consist of: a global programme of action
that identifies concrete measures and actions, targets and
timetables, and criteria and indicators; and an overarching
chemicals policy strategy that describes basic challenges, policy
goals and guiding principles, mechanisms to ensure coherence and
linkages, and a framework for addressing gaps in the existing regime
and for formulating further actions.

AUSTRALIA said deliberations on the action items
should not be discussed separately from those on capacity building.
LEBANON called for establishing a funding mechanism to enable
developing countries to implement the SAICM. The PHILIPPINES
suggested prioritization in terms of cross-cutting themes. Italy, on
behalf of the EU, said capacity building is important, but
emphasized that work remains to be done to achieve sound chemicals
management in developed countries. AUSTRALIA proposed one working
group on risk-related issues, such as acutely toxic pesticides,
stockpiles and illegal traffic, and another on integration, which he
said could address the "wish of countries to broaden the classical
chemical safety paradigms," and consider issues such as the
life-cycle approach, cleaner technology, and polluter pays
principle. Chair Thorgeirsson said he would discuss the way forward
with the Bureau, and report back to Plenary on Tuesday morning.

IN THE CORRIDORS

While the Plenary prepared to embark the "SAICM
boat," a contact group on rules of procedure navigated through
unchartered waters to decide who would be onboard. Despite the
determined efforts of one country to drown language on
participation, the contact group surfaced with a consensus on the
SAICMï¿½s draft rules, which some described as "groundbreaking."
Although Nigeriaï¿½s proposal for an Expanded Bureau was thrown
overboard, the rules do, by and large, allow NGOs and the private
sector to participate in the SAICM process on a level playing field
with governments. One NGO enthusiastically noted that this "puts
meat on the bones" of the ï¿½rhus Convention. Another delegate
exclaimed that with everyone now rowing together, he has high hopes
for a successful voyage.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

PLENARY: The Plenary will convene at 9:00 am in
the ESCAP Hall. Participants will be briefed on progress made in the
contact group on rules of procedure, and informed of the working
groups established by the Bureau.

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletinï¿½
enb@iisd.org is written and edited by
Paula Barrios; Tamilla
Gaynutdinova;
Catherine Ganzleben, Ph.D.; Fiona Koza; and Prisna Nuengsigkapian. The Digital Editor
is David Fernau. The Team Leader is Prisna Nuengsigkapian
prisna@iisd.org. The
Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D.
pam@iisd.org and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston
James "Kimo" Goree VI kimo@iisd.org.
The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the Government of the
United States of America (through the Department of State Bureau of Oceans
and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), The Netherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Canada (through CIDA, DFAIT
and Environment Canada), the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and
Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom (through the Department for
International Development - DFID and Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs - DEFRA), the European Commission (DG-ENV), the Danish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Government of Germany (through the
German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ). General Support for the
Bulletin during 2003 is provided by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), the Government of Australia, the Ministry of Environment
and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Trade of New Zealand, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Norway, Swan International, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through
the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and
Social Progress Research Institute - GISPRI), and the Ministry for
Environment of Iceland. The opinions expressed in the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with
appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin,
including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of
IISD Reporting Services at kimo@iisd.org,
+1-212-644-0217 or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY 10017, USA.